Guzzo v. Conn. State Colleges & Universities
| Decision Date | 28 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:21-cv-254 (CSH) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | LINDA GUZZO, Plaintiff, v. CONNECTICUT STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, Defendant. |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Linda Guzzo brings this action against her employer Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (“defendant” or “CSCU”). Guzzo's amended complaint, filed with this Court on June 29, 2021 alleges that, while she was employed by defendant, defendant discriminated and retaliated against her because she exercised rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2615(a)(2) and 2615(b). See Am. Compl. ¶ 52, ECF No. 21.
Defendant a state university system, brings this motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that FMLA claims against it under the self-care provision are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 2, ECF No. 24-1.
For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Guzzo initiated this case on February 26, 2021 with a complaint containing five counts, bringing claims pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 21 et seq.; the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 et seq.; and the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. These claims were all brought against defendant CSCU. Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss four of these five counts-namely, the ADEA claims and the CFEPA claims-as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See generally Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 13; Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 13-1.
Rather than oppose defendant's motion, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint, removing the ADEA and CFEPA claims while retaining the FMLA claim. P.'s Mot. for Leave to File an Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 19. The Court permitted plaintiff's proposed amendment and denied as moot defendant's motion to dismiss. Electronic Order, ECF No. 20.
Defendant has now moved to dismiss the amended complaint, making the same argument with respect to the remaining FMLA claim that it made regarding the others in its initial motion to dismiss-namely, that the Eleventh Amendment grants CSCU immunity to suit under the FMLA self-care provision. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 2.
In her amended complaint, plaintiff alleges the following facts.
Plaintiff has been an employee of CSCU, an agency of the State of Connecticut, since about 1984. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7-8. Plaintiff's titles have included Director of Continuing Education Business Programs; Coordinator, Business and Industry Services; Director of Business & Industry Services; Interim Associate Dean of Continuing Education; Associate Dean of Continuing Education; and Dean of Workforce Development & Continuing Education. Id. ¶ 9. She has experienced a serious health condition at all times relevant to the amended complaint, id. ¶ 6, and has limited mobility because of a workplace injury, id. ¶ 15.
Since 2018, plaintiff has been a member of the “Cabinet” reporting directly to Duncan Harris, an executive at Capital Community College.[1] Id. ¶ 11. In May and June 2018, Harris told plaintiff that if she applied for the position of Interim Academic Dean of Capital Community College, she would not be considered because she was “near retirement.” Id. ¶ 13-14. Beginning in May 2019, Harris and his Cabinet participated in several off-campus events at which plaintiff's physical limitations “were not considered, ” forcing plaintiff to draw attention to herself by using an elevator rather than stairs, walking long distances, and using high-rise collaborative seating specifically required by Harris. Id. ¶ 15. In May and June 2019, Harris again told plaintiff that if she applied for an open position-this time, for the role of Academic and Student Services Dean for Capital Community College-she would not be considered because she was “near retirement.” Id. ¶ 16.
In July 2019, Harris held a meeting with his Cabinet. Id. ¶ 17. Harris praised younger members of the Cabinet with comments such as, Id. When he came to plaintiff, Harris commented that she would be walking out the door with a walker, and proceeded to physically mimic her doing so. Id. ¶ 18.
In September 2019, plaintiff was on an approved FMLA leave of absence. Id. ¶ 19. Harris took several actions during her leave of absence that substantially hindered her ability to communicate with her colleagues. Id. ¶¶ 19-25. While plaintiff was on leave, Harris moved her office to a location remote from her colleagues; falsely informed external partners that they were not to communicate with plaintiff because she was retiring or otherwise not returning to work; removed plaintiff from Cabinet group texts that were the standard form of communication among the management team; and generally “cut off” her communications with the Cabinet, campus staff and faculty, and her own staff. Id. ¶¶ 20-25. When plaintiff returned from her approved FMLA leave, she found that she had not yet been assigned to a new office and that all of her files and personal belongings from her old office had been removed. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. When she eventually received an office assignment, she discovered that the office had no working computer, no heat, and poor security, among other issues. Id. ¶ 25. Despite plaintiff's efforts to find her files- including by cleaning out, at Harris's instruction, an unused work area that Harris said might contain the files-few of her files and none of her personal belongings were ever found. Id. ¶ 25- 27.
In 2020, CSCU accepted applications for three vacant positions as Chief Workforce Development Officer, including one in the region that includes Capital Community College. Id. ¶ 28. Harris and another individual interfered with the normal chain of communication that would have alerted plaintiff to the vacancies in order to prevent her from applying. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff nonetheless learned of the vacant positions and applied, but was not selected, despite being the most experienced candidate. Id. ¶ 30-31.
Plaintiff, a Dean of Workforce Development and Continuing Education at the time, was not the only person with that title who applied; however, plaintiff was the only person with that title who was not selected. Id. ¶ 32. Instead, Diane Bordonaro was selected for the third vacant position despite previously holding a position subordinate to the dean. Id. Plaintiff had listed Harris as a required reference for the position along with other references, including former presidents and executives. Id. ¶ 33. None of her other references were contacted. Id. Plaintiff also applied for the position of Associate Vice President of Student Success Management, for which she was not selected despite being qualified. Id. ¶ 35.
Beginning in August 2020, Harris and Bordonaro together took actions allegedly designed to remove plaintiff's responsibilities, diminish her position, and humiliate her. Id. ¶ 36. They transferred responsibility for three initiatives plaintiff had created and successfully led to other, less qualified employees. Id. ¶ 37. They ignored her requests to serve on committees and projects and participate in professional development opportunities and refused to provide her with requested documents that had been provided to other employees. Id. ¶¶ 39-40. Harris removed plaintiff's responsibility for managing recently awarded grants, excluded her from communications with her own staff, permitted other individuals to give directives to her staff, modified contracts for her staff without consulting her, and actively discouraged other employees and external partners from communicating with her. Id. ¶ 38, 41-43.
Bordonaro likewise sidestepped the ordinary chain of command by assigning projects and giving directions directly to plaintiff's staff, scheduling meetings with plaintiff's staff without informing plaintiff, excluding plaintiff from meetings, asking in meetings if plaintiff knew how to perform basic tasks, and informing external partners not to communicate with plaintiff. Id. ¶ 47- 48. At one point, Bordonaro made the independent decision to schedule a major meeting to discuss the regional plan for workforce development and continuing education on a date when plaintiff was on vacation, and refused plaintiff's requests to reschedule, record, or provide notes of the meeting. Id. ¶ 44-46.
When plaintiff was on vacation and work arose on time-sensitive and highly visible programs requiring her response, Bordonaro and Harris refused to adjust her vacation time so that she could work on them, resulting in her working for multiple days while on vacation. Id. ¶ 49.
CSCU also repeatedly ignored plaintiff's safety concerns and, in October 2020, rescinded her annual salary increase. Id. ¶ 50-51.
Plaintiff alleges that CSCU's actions constitute interference with her FMLA rights- specifically, in the form of discrimination-as well as retaliation for her exercise of those rights in violation of the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2615(a)(2) (discrimination) & 2615(b) (retaliation). Am Compl. ¶¶ 52-54. She alleges further that this conduct “was willful and done with the intent to coerce [her] into leaving her employment.” Id. ¶ 53. .) Underlying these claims is plaintiff's approved leave of absence around September 2019 because of an unnamed serious health condition, pursuant...
To continue reading
Request your trial